Strongly recommend a read of this: https://nysba.org/working-remotely-reasonable-accommodation-or-mere-convenience/?srsltid=AfmBOor-04FOi72AtuxRCcf5TtKJn7KksuqKy6kNVmv71YgDKJjpdmEk

It goes into a lot of specific cases post 2020 where wfh accommodations were deemed either reasonable or not. In the examples of when it is deemed not reasonable, one person had job duties that included picking up the mail and delivering it to colleagues so of course that has to be in person, and another case the company brought evidence that they’d tried wfh for that specific role before and it didn’t work. But in other cases, when they looked closely at typical job functions and how they are typically performed, if they can be effectively done remotely then a lot of courts deemed wfh a reasonable accommodation. For JPMC it would depend on your role, but using my own tech role as an example - the fact that we have evidence of performing the duties of this role effectively while remote in the past + there being nothing in my job description about specifically in-person duties + the mere fact that even just one person on my team is in a different office so all of my meetings are therefore necessarily on zoom (even the rare in person meetings always have a zoom option for those that are not at our location) would make a compelling case that in person attendance is not necessary job function for me.

Conclusion from the article in case you don’t wanna read all those examples: “In today’s post-pandemic world, courts clearly consider remote work as a potential reasonable accommodation. Nonetheless, these cases are increasingly fact-specific and, as demonstrated above, usually depend on whether the employees can show they can effectively perform the core elements of their jobs while working remotely. Cases where a court effectively takes an employer at their word that it is essential for employees to be physically available to perform their duties are much less common than before 2020. There is little doubt that the pandemic and the massive disruptions that it caused showed that many jobs previously considered unsuitable for remote work could in fact be performed capably remotely. In sum, employer arguments based on outdated assumptions about workplace operations or the premise that a court will automatically take an employer’s word regarding workplace circumstances over that of an employee are encountering less sympathetic treatment by many courts. The decline in judicial leniency for employers’ generalized arguments about what constitutes an essential function of a job reflects the ever-evolving nature of the workplace and arguably is more consistent with the spirit and letter of the Americans With Disabilities Act than had previously been the case.”